this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
573 points (96.6% liked)
Greentext
4409 readers
1343 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'll need that explained more if you don't mind.
I thought the whole point of asexual was you're just not interested in sex or anything relevant to that?
Asexual ≠ Not Liking Sex
Asexual = Not Feeling Sexual Attraction
The way I usually describe it as an asexual guy is that there's basically noone I find hot. That doesn't mean they're the opposite. It just like a sense I lack or a color I can't see. I just don't feel sexual attraction. But I do still like people based on other types of attraction and sex is still fun. For me platonic attraction is the main criteria for sexual partners. It's just a fun activity between close friends like watching a movie or playing a board game.
That's not to say that there aren't asexual people who don't like sex because those people do exist, but how much a person likes sex is on the sex repulsion to sex favorable axis and is only tangentally related to asexuality.
This is really helpful thank you
Could you elaborate further on platonic attraction? The internet says a platonic relationship is a relationship without romance or sex. This seems to contradict with it being a criteria for sexual partners for you but maybe I'm confusing things
If you label a relationship as platonic, that usually serves to make it explicit that there's no romance or sex going on, yes.
When talking about attraction though, we're in the context of the split attraction model (look that up if you're interested), and there, platonic attraction is treated not as the opposite of sexual attraction, but as its own axis for basically saying "how much do I want this person to be my friend", without saying anything about how much you're sexually attracted to the person.
If you want to properly reconcile the terms, think about it like this - a sexual/romantic relationship is one where the sexual/romantic attraction between the partners is the strongest force, whereas a platonic relationship is one where their platonic attraction is the strongest force.
I personally actually have a hard time seeing platonic and romantic attraction as separate axes, for me, romantic attraction just feels like an extension, a stronger form of platonic attraction.
I guess that explains it, thank you.
Oh yes I'm completely with you on that one, i think... but then I also feel like for me personally sexual attraction is an extension of romantic attraction. It's all about how you interpret your feelings I guess...
That's a lot of it. Like sex is also just a good way to acheive intimacy with someone you care about.
The big thing for asexual people is how you view people you aren't already attracted to in other ways. Most people can find people they barely know sexually attractive. For example celebrity crushes or finding a certain porn model hot. For an asexual person that is a foreign concept. I've never seen someone and desired to have sex with them because of how they look. It's not that we don't know when people are good looking but we don't really feel anything towards them just because they are. That's also not to say asexual people never watch porn it's just that when we do it's about the act taking place not the people in it.
Yeah that makes sense. I'm not sure about sex but I definitely can desire intimacy only based on looks or general vibe so then I guess I actually do feel some kind of romantic attraction separately from platonic attraction.
I guess platonic isn't the right word but it's the closest I could think of at the time. I guess maybe emotional attraction? A person I care deeply about who I enjoy being around and feels the same towards me. Basically a relationship for me is just a best friend who I also happen to have sex with and thats what I look for personally.
But the main thing is the lack of sexual attraction. Other sex favorable ace people may deal with things differently. I personally know one asexual aromantic woman who doesn't care who she screws because like I said before, a lack of attraction doesn't make people unattractive, it's just null. So for her basically everyone is the same so she'll just take whoever to meet her needs whenever she's horny and just be done with it. From what I've seen in the ace community that definitely isn't common but it is a good example of just how different the the stance on sex between different asexual people can be.
Isn't that just romantic attraction?
I guess it is. I personally have a very hard time drawing a line between liking someone as a really good friend and liking someone romantically. For me the only difference between a best friend and a romantic partner is if romantic activities (kissing, sleeping together, screwing, etc.) are taking place and even then some of those lines get blurry with some of my friends.
Yeah I'm with you on tha
sounds fun, where can I find friends like that?
I have no idea lol. They kind of found me and basically adopted me. Your local game store is probably your best place to look though.
praying to our overlords it is
Platonic seems fine with me. If you just see sex as another activity to do, like playing board games or TTRPGs, then it makes sense. As hikaru pointed out, the relationship itself wouldn't be platonic, but the attraction can be.
Granted, I say this as someone who does not engage in sex (and honestly not sure how ace I may or may not be).
What's the difference between that and being demisexual? I identify as demi, but now I'm wondering if I misunderstood something, because I relate to what you said.
Most people define demisexual as not feeling sexual attraction until you get to know someone better, after which that bond/intimacy allows you to start feeling sexual attraction.
But the ace community has a LOT of labels and everything I've seen is that we're pretty relaxed on them. Call yourself whatever makes sense to you; you're probably going to have to explain it anyway! lol
Demisexuality is under the asexuality umbrella, so it should seem relatable.
If you do experience sexual attraction towards those you are close to then that would be demi. If you want to have sex despite lack of sexual attraction, then that would be black-stripe ace.
The food analogy is the comparison I've seen people use to explain what sexual attraction is. Hunger is like libido and has little to nothing to do with sexual attraction. Sexual attraction would be like when someone brings out a fresh cake and you need to have a piece even if you just ate and are not hungry. I guess demi in this analogy would mean you wouldn't feel that way unless you already knew that specific dessert well. But if you just eat tasty desserts when you are bored, because you like the taste but don't have the mouthwatering reaction to it being presented, because the person who made it is important to you and you feel eating it's a way to bond with them, etc, you could still be a black-stripe ace.
That said, what counts as sexual attraction has confused me a lot despite spending a fair bit of time reading people trying to explain it.
Anyways, if demi is a functionally useful label, there no need to change. In-practice real-world usefulness of language is more important than weirdos on the Internet trying to be precise in the meanings of words.
I actually just saw this (app being screwy). To answer your question I also identify as demi. It's just that demi is a microlabel under the ace umbrella and allos usually don't know what demisexuality is so unless I'm in a specifically ace community I just identify as ace to keep things simple. Demi is also basically just "ace until proven otherwise" so the difference in nonexistent for anyone I'm not already in a relationship with.
There's also the fact that I'm still not sure if I really feel sexual attraction in the demi way or if I just crave intimacy with someone I am otherwise attracted to and sex is one of the most intimate things you can do with someone. I'm strongly leaning towards the latter but it's a tricky distinction to make. I can want to have sex with someone but for me that desire doesn't feel much different from wanting to cuddle with them nonsexually. So when it comes to my actual behavior I fit the demi label better but when it comes to how I think then I actually fit the asexual label better.
That's a great explanation, thank you!
Sexuality in general is best seen as a spectrum, and that even applies to asexuality. I've met folks who only find sexual attraction in people they are intimately familiar with (can't whack the nasty with any random people, they gotta trust and be comfortable and familiar with a partner). Others have a complete lack of sexual interest and arousal. I, myself, do have an active libido, but no actual interest in sex itself thanks to bad events in my past.
“Horny ace” is one of the more difficult sexualities to be, but it definitely does exist.
Ace is about sexual attraction, not interest in sex. You can be ace and love sex and you can be allo and be sex repulsed.
Bro this makes 0 sense
I’m queer and fully agree
My sexual preference Is “no” and I have to say that instead of asexual because sexual people have decided that the prefix “a” in front of the word “sexual” does not mean “not sexual”.
What used to be safe spaces for people whose sexual preference is “no” are now filled with people whose sexual preference is “yes, but I don’t feel horny by looking at people”.
And if anyone dare speaks up they get bullied, called acephobic, and told to just accept asexual people are sexual too and how dare we say please use a different label for that.
I am far from the only one who’s noticed this. It also leads to things like romantic asexuals (people who want a romantic relationship just without sex) having a harder time than they already did because people are learning “Oh your ace? But you’ll have sex for ME, right?”
You ever feel hungry but you're not sure what to eat so you stare blankly into the fridge hoping something takes your fancy, but you're not really craving anything because you never really get cravings. But you are hungry, so you want to eat something, so you have a choice, you can grab a protein shake because it's quick, easy, and a pragmatic solution, but that gets boring when that's always your "go to" when you're hungry. Or you could order a decadent meal to enjoy, since you're not really craving anything so you might as well set yourself up for a pleasurable experience.
Now replace being hungry with being horny.
You're horny, but you don't have any attraction to any options, and you never have. You could go for the pragmatic approach with masturbation. Or you could find someone that you think is a great person in all the important (non sexual) ways, and have sex with them because sex with fun people is fun, even if there's nothing about that person (or any person) who flicks the sexual attraction switch.
So, technically speaking, an ace individual cannot find someone sexy? They can have sex with someone for the sake of having sex, be it for bond or pleasure or whatnot, but from what you're saying they do not show any sexual attraction towards any demographic of people?
Basically.
There are grey-aces (whom are still aces; black-stripe ace sometimes is used to refer to those with no sexual attraction) whom experience some sexual attraction some of the time.
But there's a lot of aces who are surprised to realize sexual attraction is something people actually experience.
Can I be a grey heterosexual if I only fuck guys some of the time?
You could be one whether it have sex people with never or often.
I always feel a bit confused by the name, and wonder whether it will eventually see itself focused or broadened further. Sexuality is a spectrum, but “asexual” doesn’t seem, overtly, to include sexual desire given its literal meaning. I do love the names of the sub-identities associated with it, though. Each one’s intention and definition feels apparent and up to date.
Sexualities generally refer to sexual attraction. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to people have the same gender, not to repeating the same sex acts over and over and heterosexuality is about attraction to people with different genders, not to novelty sex acts. Pansexual does not mean attraction to pans not to literally everyone or everything. Taking the words too literally is not really useful.
The differentiation of the ace/allo axis and the sex-favorable/sex-repulsed axis is particularly useful for aces, but it still has its use for allos as well (some people who have PTSD related to sexual activity may be sex repulsed, but can still experience sexual attraction). Lots of reasons to engage in and enjoy sex other than attraction to a specific person. Even allos often engage in sex with those whom they aren't attracted to.
The major ace subreddits regularly had issues with sex-favorable people complaining about all the posts being sex-negative and sex-repulsed people (sometime simultaneously) complaining about too much sex-positive content. Would be more amusing if those types of posts didn't waste so much space...
I'm going to go out on a limb and feverently disagree with you here.
This is like saying "yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they're not attracted to them. They're still gay! It's only a name!"
It's an awful precedent. The amount of times I've been asked if I'm "one of those asexuals who have sex" is gross. I identify as asexual because the name itself was.. what I was. I can no longer safely identify with it now because it apparently includes everybody.
Aces can have sex. Yes. There are caveats and disclaimers, but that's not untrue. But there's no such thing as "grey asexual". That's greysexual. It's a separate thing.
"Asexual" becoming "inclusive" to almost everything muddies the waters.
I'm not against sex-favorability— I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore. It's frustrating as hell.
Maybe a little relief might be... I'm sorry.
Well... That's correct, though. It might be a little easier to see if you consider the stereotype of male-on-male sex in prisons or militaries. Or, to keep closer to your example, a homosexual man having sex with a woman just to see what it's like. Or because he's closeted and trying to conform to social pressure. There are lots of reasons to have sex with someone, and having sex with people of a particular gender does not necessarily determine your sexuality, if sexual attraction is not one of them. I mean, sure, a gay man having sex with lots of women for apparently no other reason than that he likes it might be a little sus, but, like, you might just not know what's going on.
I agree that that's gross. But not because it implies that it's valid for asexuals to like sex. It's gross because that is a weirdly intimate detail to just ask casually about, regardless of your sexuality.
No. Only those who don't feel sexual attraction towards others. Regardless of whether they like having sex or not.
If the "not having sex" part is important to you, what's wrong with identifying as "sex-repulsed asexual" instead of just "asexual"? Sounds like that would already solve your problem
Why do people whose sexual preference is “no” have to add an extra tag to what was already a perfectly useable term? Why overcomplicate?
Sexual people have decided that the term is now their term as well, when it was previously a safe way to say in one simple word “I’m not into sex at all”.
This is just bullying people away from their own term, because we’re after a way to clearly communicate no.
The examples you gave are of desperation and exploration. If you try sex and decided “Yes, I like this” then that’s not a sexual preference of “no”.
It’s not bad to be sexual. At all. In fact, most people are and THAT IS OKAY.
It is annoying (and harmful, because it encourages people to see “asexual” as “still likes sex for my sake!”) to take the word “asexual” and say “Yes asexual people still want sex!”
Let people who don’t like sex have one safe way to say it without being lumped in with a sex-enjoying group. Please. Why is it so important to take that away.
one of my exes was a sex repulsed allo and unfortunately that was part of why we broke up
BDSM != sex, even if the two are heavily connected in a lot of people's minds. I've played with both tops and bottoms that were ace/het/LGBT, and there was not anything sexual there. Hell, one of my fave experiences was bottoming for a lesbian top who enjoyed beating on dudes.
BDSM is not inherently sexual, even if there can be a lot of sexuality involved.
am lesbian who enjoys beating on dudes (impact play w/ anyone tbh)
shoutout to kinky guys who bottom for domme lezzies but still respect their sexuality :]
10000%
I love getting beat by confident women (presenting people), and never expect anything more than that. Being somewhat demi helps a lot with that aspect, but it's just basic respect for an ephemeral play partner in my mind.
Lots of kinky stuff isn't sex.
BDSM is much less about sex and much more about the power dynamic. Kinks are, by definition, having sexual arousal from non genital things. So while asexuals might not be interested in fuckin or getting fucked, other things might cause arousal.